&  WA 


VN'US  C- 


it Ml 


International  Conciliation 

Published  monthly  by  the 

American  Association  for  International  Conciliation. 

Entered  as  second  class  matter  at  New  York,  N.  Y., 

Postoffice,  February  23,  1909,  under  act  of  July  16,  1894 


THE  INTERPARLIAMENTARY  UNION 


BY 

CHRISTIAN  L.  LANGE 

Secretary  General 


APRIL,  1913,  No.  65 


American  Association  for  International  Conciliation 
Sub-station  84  (  407  West  II  7th  Street) 

New  York  City 


The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Association 
for  International  Conciliation  wish  to  arouse  the 
interest  of  the  American  people  in  the  progress  of 
the  movement  for  promoting  international  peace 
and  relations  of  comity  and  good  fellowship 
between  nations.  To  this  end  they  print  and 
circulate  documents  giving  information  as  to  the 
progress  of  these  movements,  in  order  that  indi¬ 
vidual  citizens,  the  newspaper  press,  and  organi¬ 
zations  of  various  kinds  may  have  readily  available 
accurate  information  on  these  subjects.  A  list  of 
publications  will  be  found  on  page  15. 

Christian  L.  Lange,  the  author  of  the  present 
pamphlet,  formerly  Secretary  of  the  Nobel  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Norwegian  Parliament,  is  now 
Honorary  Councilor  at  the  Nobel  Institute.  In 
1907  he  was  Technical  Delegate  from  Norway  to 
the  Hague  Conference,  and  since  1909  he  has 
been  Secretary  General  of  the  Interparliamentary 
Union. 


THE  INTERPARLIAMENTARY  UNION 


On  October  31,  1887,  a  delegation  of  British  Mem¬ 
bers  of  Parliament  and  of  leaders  of  Trades  Unions 
were  introduced  to  President  Cleveland  at  the  White 
House  by  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie.  They  had  come  to 
submit  to  the  President  an  address,  signed  by  234 
Members  of  Parliament,  in  favor  of  a  treaty  of  arbi¬ 
tration  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
At  that  time  such  treaties  between  states  were  very 
rare;  no  European  country  had  as  yet  signed  a  single 
such  document,  nor  had  the  United  States.  Some 
South  American  States  only  were  parties  to  them. 

This  movement  which  William  Randal  Cremer  had 
initiated  in  England  found  its  echo  in  America,  and 
during  the  legislative  session  of  1887-1888  Congress 
was  flooded  with  memorials,  some  containing  the 
names  of  very  prominent  persons,  in  favor  of  inter¬ 
national  arbitration.  Nevertheless,  the  project  of  an 
Anglo-American  treaty  failed;  the  only  outcome  of 
the  movement  was  the  vote  by  the  Senate  in  1890  of 
a  resolution  favoring  general  arbitration  treaties. 

FOUNDATION  OF  THE  UNION 

This  effort,  however,  was  very  important:  out  of  it 
the  Interparliamentary  Union  was  born. 

Cremer  had  learned  that  Frederic  Passy,  leader  of 
the  Peace  Party  in  the  French  Chamber,  had  already 
voiced  the  cause  of  arbitration  there,  and  that  he  had 
found  considerable  support.  In  1888  Cremer  opened 
communications  with  Passy,  and  on  October  31,  1888, 
exactly  a  year  after  the  interview  at  the  White  House, 
a  meeting  was  held  in  Paris,  attended  by  twenty-five 
French  and  nine  British  parliamentarians.  The  pro- 

3 


gramme  of  the  meeting  was  strictly  limited  to  the 
support  of  the  efforts  of  the  last  years  in  favor  of 
arbitration  treaties  between  France  and  the  United 
States  and  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  Nobody  was  sanguine  enough  to  dream  even 
of  an  Arbitration  Treaty  between  France  and  Great 
Britain. 

The  next  meeting,  which  is  considered  as  the  first 
Interparliamentary  Conference  properly  speaking, 
took  place,  again  in  Paris,  in  the  following  year,  dur¬ 
ing  the  World’s  Fair,  on  June  29  and  30,  1889.  It 
was  really  international  in  character:  ninety-six  mem¬ 
bers  of  nine  different  parliaments  attended ;  fifty-five 
Frenchmen,  thirty  British,  five  Italians,  while  each  of 
the  following  nations  was  represented  by  one  mem¬ 
ber:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Hungary,  Liberia,  Spain  and 
the  United  States.  The  Conference  was  opened  by 
Jules  Simon  and  presided  over  by  Frederic  Passy. 

In  one  of  its  resolutions  the  Conference  gave  the 
fundamental  reason  of  the  interparliamentary  institu¬ 
tion  :  “  The  Conduct  of  Governments  tending  to  be¬ 
come  more  and  more  the  expression  only  of  ideas  and 
sentiments  voiced  by  the  body  of  citizens,  it  is  for  the 
electors  to  lead  the  policy  of  their  country  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  justice,  of  right  and  of  the  brotherhood  of 
nations.” 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  UNION 

Up  to  the  present  time  (end  of  1912)  the  members 
of  the  Union  have  met  seventeen  times  in  Conference : 
twice  in  Paris  (1889  and  1900),  twice  in  London 
(1890  and  1906),  four  times  at  Brussels  (1895,  1897, 
1905  and  1910),  once  in  each  of  the  following  Euro¬ 
pean  capitals:  Rome  (1891),  Berne  (1892),  The 
Hague  (1894),  Budapesth  (1896),  Christiania  (1899), 

4 


Vienna  (1903),  Berlin  (1908).  Once  the  Interparlia¬ 
mentarians  have  crossed  the  Atlantic  to  meet  on 
American  soil  at  St.  Louis  and  in  Washington  in 
1904.  In  September,  1912,  the  17th  Conference  was 
held  at  Geneva,  in  Switzerland. 

WORK  OF  THE  UNION 

The  parliamentarians  that  founded  the  Union  in 
Paris  in  1889  very  narrowly  circumscribed  its  object 
through  its  name.  It  was  called  the  Interparlia¬ 
mentary  Conference  for  International  Arbitra¬ 
tion,  another  proof  of  the  power  of  concentration  of 
its  founder,  Randal  Cremer.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
through  this  rigid  exclusion  of  utopian  aims,  through 
the  accentuation  of  one  practical  aim,  the  institution 
appealed  to  the  common  sense  of  hard-headed  poli¬ 
ticians,  and  it  was  thus  possible,  during  the  first  diffi¬ 
cult  years,  to  win  the  confidence  and  adhesion  of 
men  who  otherwise  would  certainly  have  held  aloof. 
But  as  the  Union  progressed  in  numbers  and  its  influ¬ 
ence  extended,  other  problems  than  those  of  arbitra¬ 
tion  were  discussed,  all,  however,  relating  to  the 
progressive  evolution  and  organization  of  the  Society 
of  Nations.  The  Conferences  have  passed  resolutions 
regarding  neutrality  and  the  laws  of  war.  They  have 
several  times  declared  in  favor  of  the  immunity  of  pri¬ 
vate  property  at  sea  during  war,  a  reform  so  ardently 
demanded  by  the  common  interests  of  peaceful  com¬ 
merce.  Two  Conferences  have  adopted  a  voeu  in  favor 
of  the  elaboration  of  a  Code  of  International  Law. 
Some  of  them  have  discussed  the  problems  relating  to 
the  growth  of  international  armaments. 

But  up  to  the  present  time  the  Interparliamentarians 
have  always  limited  themselves  to  the  discussion  of 

5 


questions  relating  to  International  Law  ;  they  have 
never  discussed  economic  questions  and  they  have 
always  expressly  refused  to  pronounce  themselves  on 
problems  of  a  political  nature,  in  which  the  interests 
of  different  states  might  be  opposed. 

The  latter  principle  is  one  inevitably  bound  up  with 
the  character  of  the  institution  itself.  Because  the 
Union  is  composed  of  responsible  statesmen,  belong¬ 
ing  to  nations  whose  legitimate  interests  may  from 
time  to  time  be  in  conflict,  it  would  inevitably  com¬ 
promise  its  own  authority  if  it  raised  its  voice  for  or 
against  this  or  the  other  practical  solution  of  inter¬ 
national  conflicts.  The  Interparliamentary  gatherings 
have,  without  exception,  always  restricted  themselves 
to  the  advocacy  of  peaceful  and  judicial  methods  for 
the  settlement  of  conflicts. 

THE  PERMANENT  COURT  OF  ARBITRATION 

The  two  first  Interparliamentary  Conferences  had 
only  treated  one  side  of  the  problem  of  arbitration, 
namely,  the  conclusion  of  treaties  stipulating  the  obli¬ 
gation  for  the  states  to  submit  conflicts  to  arbitration. 

The  Rome  Conference,  in  1891,  tackled  another  side 
of  the  problem :  it  invited  the  Interparliamentary  Com¬ 
mittees  to  put  on  the  agenda  of  the  following  Con¬ 
ference  the  institution  of  an  Arbitration  Court.  This 
would  mean  important  progress  in  two  respects :  from 
a  practical  standpoint,  the  recourse  to  arbitration 
would  be  facilitated  if  it  were  not  necessary  to  organ¬ 
ize  the  tribunal  while  the  conflict  was  still  exasperating 
the  minds  on  both  sides,  and  from  a  theoretical  stand¬ 
point  the  existence  of  such  a  Court  would  show  the 
state  of  progress  of  the  society  of  nations.  Indeed, 
it  is  only  by  the  permanent  existence  of  a  jurisdiction 

6 


resting  on  law  that  a  society  manifests  itself  as  legally 
organized. 

The  question  occupied  the  three  following  con¬ 
ferences. 

The  Brussels  Conference,  of  1895,  on  the  proposal 
of  two  members  whom  the  Union  still  rejoices  to  see 
at  its  head,  the  Hon.  Philip  Stanhope,  now  Lord 
Weardale,  and  the  venerable  Belgian  Senator  Au¬ 
guste  Houzeau  de  Lehaie,  voted  a  draft  convention 
in  fourteen  articles,  which  was  communicated  to  the 
different  Governments. 

This  draft  reposed  on  the  following  principles : 

1.  National  sovereignty  remains  inalienable  and  in¬ 
violable  ; 

2.  The  adherence  of  each  Government  to  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  an  International  Permanent  Court  should 
be  purely  voluntary; 

3.  All  adherent  states  should  be  on  a  footing  of 
perfect  equality  before  the  International  Permanent 
Court ; 

4.  The  judgments  of  the  Permanent  Court  should 
have  the  form  of  an  executive  sentence. 

Four  years  later,  in  1899,  the  first  Peace  Conference 
was  convened  at  The  Hague.  The  great  Convention 
voted  by  the  Conference  “  For  the  Pacific  Settlement 
of  International  Disputes  ”  to  a  large  extent  rests 
on  the  convention  drafted  by  the  Interparliamentary 
Union.  Thus  it  places  all  states  on  a  footing  of  per¬ 
fect  equality  with  respect  to  the  Arbitration  Court 
created  by  the  Convention. 

This  was  a  real  victory  for  the  ideas  championed 
by  the  Union.  It  has  even  been  said  that  the  calling 
of  the  Hague  Conference  itself  was  due  to  the  inter- 

7 


parliamentary  movement,  especially  to  the  Budapesth 
Conference  in  1896. 

CALLING  OF  THE  SECOND  HAGUE  CONFERENCE 

And  this  explains  why  the  St.  Louis  Conference 
in  1904,  which  was  presided  over  by  Mr.  Richard 
Bartholdt,  Member  of  Congress,  and  Founder  of  the 
American  Group  of  the  Union,  took  the  initiative  to 
solicit  the  convocation  of  another  Peace  Conference. 

Mr.  Theodore  E.  Burton,  then  member  of  Congress, 
now  United  States  Senator,  introduced  the  question 
at  St.  Louis.  In  the  resolution  voted  on  his  motion, 
there  are  three  interesting  points  to  be  noted.  Two 
subjects  are  indicated  as  worthy  of  discussion  at  the 
proposed  Conference:  1,  The  conclusion  of  arbitra¬ 
tion  treaties  between  the  states  represented,  stipulat¬ 
ing  their  obligation  to  have  recourse  to  arbitration; 
2,  the  periodicity  of  the  international  congresses, 
which  would  thus  form  a  legislative  institution  within 
the  society  of  nations,  by  the  side  of  the  judiciary 
created  by  the  first  Hague  Conference. 

Thirdly,  the  resolution  ends  with  a  respectful  re¬ 
quest  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America 
to  take  the  initiative  of  calling  the  conference. 

On  the  24th  of  September,  1904,  the  Secretary  Gen¬ 
eral  of  the  Union,  Mr.  Gobat  of  Switzerland,  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  members  of  the  Interparliamentary  Con¬ 
ferences,  transmitted  the  resolution  to  President 
Roosevelt  at  the  White  House  in  Washington.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  ended  his  reply  to  the  address  with  the 
following  words :  “  At  an  early  date  I  shall  issue  the 
call  for  the  conference  you  request.” 

This  initiative  produced,  three  years  later,  the  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  second  Hague  Conference. 


MODEL  ARBITRATION  TREATY 

In  the  meantime  the  Union  was  actively  occupied 
with  the  framing  of  the  programme  for  this  new 
Conference.  This  work  entirely  filled  the  time  of  the 
two  general  assemblies,  at  Brussels  in  1905,  and  at 
London  in  1906.  On  a  special  point  the  London  Con¬ 
ference  voted  a  draft  of  an  international  convention 
and  took  a  new  step  forward  in  the  arbitration  ques¬ 
tion,  still  the  chief  object  of  the  Union.  Indeed,  if  the 
Court  instituted  by  the  first  Hague  Conference  should 
be  able  to  exert  all  its  usefulness,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  states  engaged  themselves  to  have  recourse 
to  arbitration  for  certain  classes  of  conflicts. 

The  model  arbitration  treaty  was  originally  due  to 
the  initiative  of  Mr.  Richard  Bartholdt.  It  was 
voted  by  the  London  Conference  on  the  remarkable  re¬ 
port  submitted,  on  behalf  of  a  special  Commission,  by 
His  Excellency  Ernest  De  Plener,  late  Austrian  Min¬ 
ister  of  Finance.  At  the  Hague  Conference  of  1907 
it  was  adopted  by  the  Portuguese  Delegates  and 
by  them  submitted  to  the  Arbitration  Commission. 
Around  this  draft  convention  were  fought  the  most 
prolonged  struggles  of  the  conference.  During  these 
debates  the  draft  was  limited  in  certain  respects,  but 
considerably  extended  in  others.  At  first  received 
very  coolly,  it  found  successively  a  more  and  more 
numerous  following,  and  at  last  it  united  the  votes  of 
thirty-two  states,  out  of  the  forty-four  represented  at 
The  Hague. 

This  was  not  sufficient.  The  principle  of  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  unanimous  vote,  which  is  regularly  followed 
in  diplomatic  conferences,  again  prevailed,  as  the 
minority  refused  to  give  way.  The  Conference  passed 
a  unanimous  declaration,  however,  in  favor  of  the 

9 


principle  of  obligatory  arbitration :  “  Some  conflicts, 
especially  those  concerning  the  interpretation  and  ap¬ 
plication  of  international  conventions,  are  liable  to  be 
submitted  to  obligatory  arbitration  without  any  re¬ 
striction.” 

THE  BERLIN  CONFERENCE  AND  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF 

THE  UNION 

The  Union  could  point  to  a  moral  victory:  at  The 
Hague  the  majority  had  rallied  to  its  standpoint;  but 
it  had  not  found  unanimous  favor.  In  order  to  gain 
a  complete  victory  it  was  necessary  to  redouble  the 
efforts  and  to  concentrate  them. 

From  this  standpoint  the  15th  Interparliamentary 
Conference  should  be  looked  at.  It  met  at  Berlin  in 
September,  1908,  and  was  of  particular  importance, 
for  the  organization  of  the  Union. 

During  the  first  years  the  Union  had  no  permanent 
organization.  The  Conferences  invited  their  members 
to  form  “  Interparliamentary  Committees  ”  in  each 
country.  This  is  the  origin  of  the  present  groups. 
At  the  Rome  Conference,  in  1891,  the  foundation  of 
a  Central  Office  was  discussed,  and  the  creation  of  a 
provisional  secretariat  was  decided  upon.  A  final 
organization  was  not  instituted  until  the  Berne  Confer¬ 
ence,  in  1892.  It  founded  the  Interparliamentary 
Bureau,  which  should  serve  as  Central  Office  of  the 
Union,  under  management  of  the  Swiss  member  of 
the  Committee. 

The  Bureau  was  at  first  under  the  control  of  a 
permanent  Committee,  the  rules  of  which  for  some 
years  were  rather  unstable  and  changing.  It  was  only 
at  the  Christiania  Conference,  in  1899,  that  some  sta¬ 
bility  was  obtained,  through  the  creation  of  the  Inter- 

10 


* 

parliamentary  Council,  composed  of  two  members 
from  each  Group. 

The  aim  of  the  reorganization  decided  upon  at 
Berlin  in  1908  was,  then,  on  one  hand,  to  strengthen 
the  central  authorities  of  the  Union  with  a  view  to 
create  a  strong  executive;  on  the  other,  to  vivify, 
through  this  concentration  of  the  forces,  the  national 
Groups  which  must  needs  be  the  essential  supporting 
elements  of  the  institution. 

This  new  organization  necessitated  considerable  ex¬ 
penditure.  In  order  to  meet  this,  the  Union  made  an 
appeal  to  its  different  groups,  asking  them  to  assure  an 
annual  revenue.  Before  this  the  Union  had  been  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  individual  contributions  of  members,  one 
state  only,  Norway,  having  voted  annually  an  official 
subvention.  At  the  Berlin  Conference,  Lord  Wear- 
dale,  one  of  the  principal  promoters  of  the  reorganiza¬ 
tion,  announced  that  the  British  Government  proposed 
to  grant  to  the  Union  an  annual  subsidy  of  £300.  He 
was  also  able  to  announce  that  an  International  Com¬ 
mittee,  the  representative  of  which  was  the  American 
Branch  of  the  Association  for  International  Con¬ 
ciliation,  was  willing  to  guarantee  an  annual  subven¬ 
tion  for  five  years,  or  until  the  different  states  had  re¬ 
solved  upon  their  attitude  toward  the  Union. 

The  appeal  of  the  Union  has  been  responded  to  by 
nearly  all  the  states  in  which  Groups  are  in  existence. 
Only  in  a  very  few  cases  the  Groups  themselves  have 
to  contribute  to  the  funds.  The  Union  is  now  assured 
of  an  annual  income  of  between  $12,000  and  $14,000. 

This  official  connection  between  the  Union  and  the 
Governments  is  a  fact  of  great  importance.  The 
nations  do  not  pay  for  nothing.  They  give  their  money 

11 


because  they  expect  to  have  something  in  return,  and 
they  have,  so  to  speak,  bound  themselves  to  take  into 
serious  consideration  the  drafts  presented  to  them  by 
the  Interparliamentarians.  The  Union  has  thus  be¬ 
come  one  of  the  active  elements  in  the  organization 
of  the  coming  Society  of  Nations. 

THE  NEW  ORGANIZATION 

The  new  organization  may  be  said  to  coordinate  in 
a  wise  way  the  different  forces  of  the  Union.  Its 
highest  authority  is  the  Conference,  which  meets 
annually,  or  every  second  year.1 

All  the  members  of  the  Union  are  entitled  to  meet 
at  the  Conference,  but  several  Groups  have  adopted 
the  practice  of  designating  Delegates.  The  Confer¬ 
ence  passes  resolutions  on  the  problems  before  the 
Union  and  maps  out  a  sort  of  programme  for  the  na¬ 
tional  Groups  during  the  ensuing  year. 

The  Council  is  the  highest  administrative  authority 
of  the  Union.  It  decides  what  questions  may  be 
brought  before  the  Conferences  and  passes  upon  the 
draft  resolutions  to  be  submitted  to  them.  It  has, 
besides,  the  control  of  the  finances,  accepts  gifts  and 
subventions  and  fixes  the  estimates  for  the  following 
year.  It  nominates  the  treasurer  and  the  secretary 
general  and  passes  upon  their  annual  reports. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  five  has  the  control 
of  the  Interparliamentary  Bureau,  which  is  managed 
by  the  Secretary  General,  fixing  its  annual  programme 
and  directing  the  main  lines  of  its  activity. 

NATIONAL  GROUPS 

The  most  important  elements  in  the  Interparliamen¬ 
tary  Organization,  however,  must  needs  be  the  Na- 

1  The  next  Conference  is  to  meet  at  The  Hague  in  August 
or  September  next  for  the  inauguration  of  the  Peace  Palace. 

12 


tional  Groups.  If  they  are  not  really  active  and  living 
forces,  the  best  and  wisest  resolutions  of  the  Confer¬ 
ences  will  have  no  sanction. 

The  Union  is  at  present  composed  of  twenty-two 
Groups  1  and  some  3,600  individual  parliamentarians 
figure  on  its  lists.  This  appears  quite  an  imposing 
number,  but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind — first,  that 
the  entire  total  of  all  parliamentarians  in  these  coun¬ 
tries  amounts  to  9,718,  so  that  the  Union  at  present 
only  registers  about  37%  of  active  parliamentarians  in 
these  states ;  secondly,  that  there  are  some  twenty  con¬ 
stitutional  states  as  yet  completely  outside  the  Union, 
as,  for  instance,  all  of  the  Latin-American  States ; 
thirdly,  that  the  existing  Groups  differ  widely  in 
number  and  in  activity.  While  some  are  splendidly 
organized  and  have  established  a  real  influence  on 
their  Parliaments,  others  are  borne  up  only  by  the 
devoted  interest  of  some  few  individual  members. 
Even  if  the  Group  is  numerous,  this  is  of  small  use 
if  it  has  no  corporate  life  of  its  own. 

WORK  BEFORE  THE  UNION 

The  great  object  before  the  Union  is  to  prepare 
through  parliamentary  action  the  passing  into  inter¬ 
national  law  of  the  reforms  it  has  at  heart,  above 
everything  else  the  substitution,  in  international  dis¬ 
putes,  of  pacific  methods  for  naked  force.  We  have 
seen  how,  since  the  institution  of  the  Peace  Confer¬ 
ences  at  The  Hague,  the  Interparliamentary  Confer¬ 
ences  have  centered  their  activity  round  the  prepara¬ 
tion  of  the  work  to  be  done  there,  and  it  is  quite 
natural  that  at  present,  when  the  day  of  the  third 

1  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Canada,  Denmark,  France, 
Germany,  Great  Britain,  Greece,  Hungary,  Japan,  Netherlands, 
Norway,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia,  Servia,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Turkey,  Switzerland  and  the  United  States  of  America. 

13 


Hague  Conference  is  drawing  near,  the  minds  of  the 
Interparliamentarians  are  more  and  more  bent  on  the 
programme  of  that  meeting.  Several  Commissions 
have  been  instituted  in  order  to  study  a  whole  series 
of  problems  to  be  brought  before  the  Conference,  and 
eventually  to  prepare  draft  conventions. 

No  international  legislature  is  in  existence.  Inter¬ 
national  law  is  enacted  through  treaties  or  conventions 
and  no  power  is  party  to  a  treaty  without  its  having 
been  ratified  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  coun¬ 
try.  This  gives  a  twofold  duty  to  the  Interparlia¬ 
mentary  Union.  Not  only  must  it  try  to  prepare  a 
programme  and  proposals  for  the  diplomatic  Confer¬ 
ences  entrusted  with  the  drafting  of  international 
Conventions,  but  when  this  part  of  the  work  is  done 
it  must  try  to  bring  it  about  through  the  action  of  its 
groups  that  these  conventions  obtain  the  ratification  of 
the  different  states. 

Thus,  at  the  last  Interparliamentary  Conference, 
which  met  at  Geneva  on  September  18,  19  and  20, 
1912,  there  were  discussed  problems  of  international 
law  and  policy,  such  as  arbitration  and  mediation, 
limitation  of  armaments  and  aerial  warfare,  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  Peace  Conferences  at  The  Hague  and  the 
right  of  nationalities,  and  for  several  of  these  ques¬ 
tions  Commissions  of  study  were  instituted  which 
will  have  to  report  to  a  later  Conference.  The  Con¬ 
ference  also  voted,  however,  a  series  of  resolutions 
asking  the  Groups  to  address  their  Governments  with  a 
view  to  obtain  from  them  the  ratification  of  several  im¬ 
portant  international  conventions  which  have  not  yet 
passed  into  the  statute  book  of  the  Society  of  Nations, 
above  all  the  Hague  Convention  as  to  a  Prize  Court 
and  the  Declaration  of  London  on  Naval  Law. 

14 


LIST  OF  PUBLICATIONS 


Nos.  1-54,  inclusive  (April,  1907,  to  May,  1912).  Including  papers 
by  Baron  d’Estournelles  de  Constant,  George  Trumbull  Ladd,  Elihu 
Root,  Barrett  Wendell,  Charles  E.  Jefferson,  Seth  Low,  William 
James,  Andrew  Carnegie,  Philander  C.  Knox,  Pope  Pius  X,  Heinrich 
Lammasch,  Norman  Angell,  and  others.  A  list  of  titles  and  authors 
will  be  sent  on  application. 

Special  Bulletin:  War  Practically  Preventable,  and  Arguments  for 
Universal  Peace,  by  Rev.  Michael  Clune,  June,  1912. 

55.  The  International  Mind.  Opening  Address  at  the  Lake  Mo- 
honk  Conference  on  International  Arbitration,  by  Nicholas  Murray 
Butler,  June,  1912. 

56.  The  Irrationality  of  War.  On  Science  as  an  Element  in  the 
Developing  of  International  Good  Will  and  Understanding,  by  Sir 
Oliver  Lodge,  July,  1912. 

57.  The  Interest  of  the  Wage-earner  in  the  Present  Status  of  the 
Peace  Movement;  Address  Delivered  at  the  Lake  Mohonk  Confer¬ 
ence  on  International  Arbitration,  by  Charles  Patrick  Neill,  August, 
1912. 

58.  The  Relation  of  Social  Theory  to  Public  Policy,  by  Franklin 
H.  Giddings,  September,  1912. 

59.  The  Double  Standard  in  Regard  to  Fighting,  by  George  M. 
Stratton,  October,  1912. 

60.  As  to  Two  Battleships.  Contributions  to  the  Debate  upon 
the  Naval  Appropriation  Bill  in  the  Plouse  of  Representatives, 
November,  1912. 

61.  The  Cosmopolitan  Club  Movement,  by  Louis  P.  Lochner, 
December,  1912. 

62.  The  Spirit  of  Self-Government;  Address  Delivered  at  the 
144th  Anniversary  Banquet  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  by  Elihu  Root,  January,  1913. 

63.  The  Time  to  Test  Our  Faith  in  Arbitration,  by  William 
Howard  Taft,  and  Should  the  Panama  Canal  Tolls  Controversy  be 
Arbitrated?  by  Amos  S.  Hershey,  February,  1913. 

Special  Bulletin:  Who  Makes  War?  From  the  London  Times, 
February,  1913. 

64.  Internationalism;  A  Selected  List  of  Books,  Pamphlets  and 
Periodicals,  by  Frederick  C.  Hicks,  March,  1913. 

65.  The  Interparliamentary  Union,  by  Christian  L.  Lange, 
April,  1913. 

Up  to  the  limit  of  the  editions  printed,  any  one  of  the  above  will  be 
sent  postpaid  upon  receipt  of  a  request  addressed  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  American  Association  for  International  Conciliation,  Postoffice 
Sub-station  84,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

A  small  edition  of  a  monthly  bibliography  of  articles  having  to  do 
with  international  matters  is  also  published  and  distributed  to  libra¬ 
ries,  magazines,  and  newspapers. 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 


Nicholas  Murray  Butler 
Richard  Bartholdt 
Lyman  Abbott 
James  Speyer 


Stephen  Henry  Olin 
Seth  Low 
Robert  A.  Franks 
George  Blumenthal 


Robert  Bacon 


COUNCIL  OF  DIRECTION  OF  THE 


AMERICAN  ASSOCIATION  FOR 

Lyman  Abbott,  New  York. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Boston. 

Edwin  A.  Alderman,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
Robert  Bacon,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Richard  Bartholdt,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

George  Blumenthal,  New  York. 

Clifton  R.  Breckenridge,  Fort  Smith, 
Arkansas. 

William  J.  Bryan,  Lincoln,  Neb. 

T.  E.  Burton,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  New  York. 
Andrew  Carnegie,  New  York. 

Edward  Cary,  New  York. 

Joseph  H.  Choate,  New  York. 

Richard  H.  Dana,  Boston,  Mass. 

Arthur  L.  Dasher,  Macon,  Ga. 

Horace  E.  Deming,  New  York. 

Charles  W.  Eliot,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  W.  Foster,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Robert  A.  Franks,  Orange,  N.  J. 

Robert  Garrett,  Baltimore,  Md. 

John  Arthur  Greene,  New  York. 

James  M.  Greenwood,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
Franklin  H.  Head,  Chicago,  III. 

William  J.  Holland,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 
Hamilton  Holt,  New  York. 

David  Starr  Jordan,  Stanford  University, 
Cal. 

J.  H.  Kirkland,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Adolph  Lewisohn,  New  York. 

Seth  Low,  New  York. 


INTERNATIONAL  CONCILIATION 

Clarence  H.  Mackay,  New  York. 

Theodore  Marburg,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Brander  Matthews,  New  York. 

Silas  McBee,  New  York. 

George  B.  McClellan,  Princeton,  N.  J. 
Andrew  J.  Montague,  Richmond,  Va. 

W.  W.  Morrow,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Levi  P.  Morton,  New  York. 

Stephen  H.  Olin,  New  York. 

Henry  S.  Pritchett,  New  York. 

A.  V.  V.  Raymond,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Ira  Remsen,  Baltimore,  Md. 

James  Ford  Rhodes,  Boston,  Mass. 

Howard  J.  Rogers,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Elihu  Root,  Washington,  D.  C. 

J.  G.  Schurman,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

James  Brown  Scott,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Isaac  N.  Seligman,  New  York. 

F.  J.  V.  Skiff,  Chicago,  III. 

William  M.  Sloane,  New  York. 

James  Speyer,  New  York. 

Oscar  S.  Straus,  New  York. 

Mrs.  Mary  Wood  Swift,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
George  W.  Taylor,  Demopolis,  Ala. 

O.  H.  Tittman,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  H.  Tolman,  New  York. 

Charlemagne  Tower,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Benjamin  F-  Trueblood,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Edward  Tuck,  Paris,  France. 

George  E.  Vincent,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 
William  D.  Wheelwright,  Portland,  Ore. 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler  Stephen  Henry  Olin 

Richard  Bartholdi  Seth  Low 

Lyman  Abbott  Robert  A.  Franks 

James  Speyer  George  Blumenthal 

Robert  Bacon 

Secretary 

Frederick  P.  Keppel 


Assistant  Secretary  for  the  Southern  States 

Dunbar  Rowland 


CONCILIATION  INTERNATIONALE 

78  bis  Avenue  Henri  Martin,  Paris  XVI®,  France 

President  Fondateur,  Baron  D'Estournelles  de  Constant 
Member  Hague  Court,  Senator 

Honorary  Presidents:  Berthelot  and  Leon  Bourgeois,  Senators 
Secretaries  General:  A.  Metin  and  Jules  Rais 
Treasurer:  Albert  Kahn 

VERBAND  FUR  INTERNATIONALE  VERST ANDIGUNG 

Presidents 

Geheimer  Rat  Professor  Dr.  Emanuel  Ritter  von  Ullmann,  Munich 
Professor  Dr.  Otfried  Nippold,  Professor  Dr.  Walther  Schucking, 

Oberursel  am  Taunus  Marburg  a.L. 

Vice-Presidents 

Professor  Dr.  Robert  Piloty,  Bankdirektor  Hermann  Maier,  Schatzmeister, 
Wurzburg.  Frankfurt  a.M. 


